1. On May 10, 2013, with respect to the Plaintiff’s Defendant, KRW 2,042,430 and August 8, 2013 based on the mobile communication subscription contract.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's mobile phone sales store B used the driver's license that the plaintiff stolen from the plaintiff, without the plaintiff's consent, purchased the device in the name of the plaintiff, and opened a mobile phone number C (hereinafter "instant number") and used the communications service. Each of the contracts of this case is a forgery of B, and there is no obligation under the above provision of paragraph (1) of the above contract. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that even if each of the contracts of this case was normally concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff or was concluded by B, the delegation of the plaintiff's right of representation or the expression agency under Article 126 or Article 129 of the Civil Act is valid.

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the requirement of the right

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). A.

With respect to whether the Plaintiff directly entered into each of the contracts of this case, the Health Board and each of the contracts of this case contains personal information on the Plaintiff, and the copy of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is attached to the Plaintiff’s license. By September 6, 2013, the user fee of this case was paid by automatic transfer to the claim account of the Plaintiff’s mother’s parent before September 6, 2013. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant’s call to the Defendant’s call center with the instant number to separate the claim account for the use of the instant number from the Plaintiff’s mother’s above account. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,767 of the telephone fee of August 8, 2013 with the credit card number in the name of D does not conflict between the parties or all of the entries and arguments in each of subparagraphs 1 through 5-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings.